Dean can use the next three years to consolidate his power and state a new vision. He can tell self-deprecating jokes about the Scream (which was overstated anyway), and build up promissory notes with the state parties.

First of all this talk is fucking premature for everyone except those who live in NH and IA, we should be focusing on getting new congresspeople and senators into office in 2006.

Anyways, remember that Clinton was the first lady of ARKANSAS before the first lady of the US. She can only not play to middle america (whatever the fuck THAT is) because lazy media whores say she is without thinking. She's smart and talks to people about the issues, so she can connect with Americans with functioning brains...

Clark is a fabulous leader. I see in him that special charisma & ability to speak off the cuff, to say what he means & mean what he says. He is progressive, but the right wing-nuts won't be able to paint him as anti-American. And he will most definitely meet any criticism head-on, he won't allow the other side to push him around.

I like Gore, but we need the leadership of Clark, and Gore's influence, insider knowledge, and policy advisement as VP. Gore is young enough to take the big job 8 years later.

I don't like the idea of ANY Senators running--WE NEED THEM WHERE THEY ARE.

And I really dislike Richardson, he seems much too comfy with the powers that be.

I love, love, love, love, love Gore, but, alas, the real world has a perceived reality that Gore is a "whacko." (And, no, Cheswick, I'm not allowing the media to frame my opinion. I'm accepting that the media has framed OTHERS' opinions).

Clark is a liberal who speaks like a moderate - he'll fly well.

And, he'd be the president I was promised in 8th grade government class.

that does not come along very often. As much admiration as I have for a few of our Congress members--Boxer, Kennedy being two of a handful that come to mind--for their integrity, leadership, & dedication to the Democratic principles, Clark stands apart.

We are convinced, but I would encourage our DU brothers & sisters to check him out...I mean really listen to him. Clinton had a special something that allowed him to thrive in a hostile environment. I contend that Clark has that...Plus more!

While I admire, respect and believe in Wes Clark...what he brings to the table may not be as much needed.

If the war continues on a path to ruin as it has and America finally decides to stop marching our kids off to the graveyard and that PEACE is a true vision then military credentials are no longer important.

I honestly long for that day. I don't WANT it to be a litmus test that the President had to see battle and kill people. I'd like a President with a different vision in his heart. So keep that in mind.

I do not need a president who has seen battle; but the Democratic party is seen as a party with weak to no national security credentials. In addition, if you want to break into the porter-piggy bank at the Pentagon, you will need someone who can be believed. Clinton's greatest failing was his need to permit that shit to continue. Clark and Kucinich were the only two candidates who proposed cutting the defense budget--or what Clark calls the "make-want budget" now out of those two, who could have actually done it?

Nevertheless, I support Clark and still do, because he is unafraid to stand up and he tells the truth. He is not a politician--thank the gods.

I like them all, in that order. I would love to see freepers head exploding if Hillary ran, it would be their worst nightmare. They always talk about her fearfully at free republic. I don't care if she is polarizing, so was Bush and he won anyway.If not Hillary then Kerry or Edwards. Kerry could probably win if he ran again, he now has national name recognition and came awful close last time, while Edwards would be an energetic choice that would be hard to beat for the republicans.

Course all this is preliminary, I would have to see the final field of players before I made a solid decision.

Gore has come to life and would probably run a rip-snorting, freewheeling campaign this time around. He has nothing to lose, he has already been given up for dead, so he is free to go crazy and let it all hang out. Meanwhile, Russ Feingold is a paragon of integrity(or as close as a politician can come, for you cynical types )

Warner, Feingold, Boxer, Kucinich, Dean, H. Clinton and Bayh all lacks national security experience which is what brought down John Kerry in the end. That type of expertise post 9/11 has got to be on the ticket....For that to be ignored is dumbfounding!

And Wes Clark is truly the only Dem who has the expertise and has experience leading. Sitting on committees does not equal expertise on any issue.

If there is a senator on the ticket....he/she has to be at the bottom 1/2.

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion
board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules
page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the
opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent
the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.